Quote:
Originally Posted by Ginwen
The thing I'm actually more disappointed about then the No Awards (because they suck but in most cases based on what was nominated were deserved) is that there was a proposal to allow all members, supporting and attending, a chance to vote on things that were ratified at the business meetings (so it would take 3 years instead of 2, but you could vote even if you weren't there). I think if not for the events of this year, it might have passed, but it lost I think 69-47, and I think that was due to this year's mess.
|
I think it was a case of bad timing. While passage would not have affected any of the amendments up for consideration this year, I think there was concern that someone coordinating a scorched earth attack on the Hugo Awards in the future could continue the attack for an additional year, and possibly sow enough doubt in the general membership that any complicated modifications to the constitution would get voted down. It's easier to create a pithy comment to cause doubt than it is to explain why something complicated is a good idea. Politicians do the former every day, and rarely succeed at the latter.